Prepare tin foil hats - no planes hit the twin towers

Werewolf said:
WTC7 was from memory hit by a large chunk of debris (hundred ton+), which damaged it.
It was also from memory built around an existing structure (church or something?) so it was weaker when damaged in certain ways than other structures of a similar size would have been.
It then caught fire, and was basically left to burn because the fire service had lost so many people already they didn't want to/couldn't risk losing more for a low value building where people's lives were not in danger.

When you realise those three things it suddenly becomes a lot clearer.
In fact the last item alone would likely result in most buildings collapsing, as any uncontrolled/contested fire in a building can result in it collapsing (as can be seen in everything from house fires, to warehouse fires, to office buildings and shopping malls).
Click to expand...


Also all explanations work from the assumption the building is to code, just like it says on your mot "at time of test", over the years do you really think every bit of maintenance, every firewall bung and cable block and conduit, every in ch of the brittle temperature resistant coating on the steel is in place? that no builder doing a job inside a crawl space didn't drop his hammer and chip some off and decide it wasn't worth the hassle of reporting it and getting in trouble if he even noticed?

that none of it was knocked off by the force and vibrations that would have spread through the steel structure from the massive impact let alone any caused by the towers and other debris falling.

little things can add up a lot small weak points when heated extensively unprotected suddenly become failure points, lots of them combined can have an effect thats incalculable.


Also the calculations done in the analysis are a lot of guesswork because of how utterly absurdly complicated the level of detail required is.
 
The one argument I see thrown up time and time again in the WTC debate with a CT nut is the "steel doesn't melt at the temperature jet fuel burns" fallacy.

No, it might not, but heat invariably will reduce it's structural strength, and thermal contraction and expansion can be a big factor in engineering. A steel structure doesn't have to reach it's melting point to fail.
 
The Funktopus said:
The one argument I see thrown up time and time again in the WTC debate with a CT nut is the "steel doesn't melt at the temperature jet fuel burns" fallacy.

No, it might not, but heat invariably will reduce it's structural strength, and thermal contraction and expansion can be a big factor in engineering. A steel structure doesn't have to reach it's melting point to fail.
Click to expand...

its about 50% loss in strength at jet fuel/massive building fire temps

but then again with a leaf blower and old engine oil you can melt iron in your back yard....
 
Tefal said:
Also all explanations work from the assumption the building is to code, just like it says on your mot "at time of test", over the years do you really think every bit of maintenance, every firewall bung and cable block and conduit, every in ch of the brittle temperature resistant coating on the steel is in place? that no builder doing a job inside a crawl space didn't drop his hammer and chip some off and decide it wasn't worth the hassle of reporting it and getting in trouble if he even noticed?

that none of it was knocked off by the force and vibrations that would have spread through the steel structure from the massive impact let alone any caused by the towers and other debris falling.

little things can add up a lot small weak points when heated extensively unprotected suddenly become failure points, lots of them combined can have an effect thats incalculable.


Also the calculations done in the analysis are a lot of guesswork because of how utterly absurdly complicated the level of detail required is.
Click to expand...

Aye, from memory there was a guy doing a dissertation on the WTC1 and 2 fire-proofing (I think he was doing it in general on fire standards at the time of construction, and had permission to use them for a study), and basically in the case of WTC1 and 2 both were way below even the original standard required, with large sections having no covering, and many more having far below the minimum required.

I think it was the case that in some cases it had obviously never been applied properly (or at all), and in others it just hadn't been repaired when damaged.
 
The Funktopus said:
The one argument I see thrown up time and time again in the WTC debate with a CT nut is the "steel doesn't melt at the temperature jet fuel burns" fallacy.

No, it might not, but heat invariably will reduce it's structural strength, and thermal contraction and expansion can be a big factor in engineering. A steel structure doesn't have to reach it's melting point to fail.
Click to expand...

And a great example of how heat affects steel can be seen in railway tracks which always have to be laid to allow for expansion and contraction, and even then in really hot weather the trains have to run slower as it moves too much to make it safe to travel at their normal speeds, and in steel/iron bridge construction where they have to allow places for sections to slide over each other as it expands/contracts in the weather.
 
Fenris said:
I don't think he is saying NOTHING hit the towers, just that they were not pilot controlled 767's.
Click to expand...

Nerusy said:
+1

OP, what you put in the title was not what he said.

Ah I see you got it from the title of the article, I absolutely hate article titles, they're always false and misleading.
Click to expand...

How did you two come to that conclusion

The vertical and horizontal tail would have instantaneously separated from the aircraft, hit the steel box columns and fallen to the ground.

‘The engines when impacting the steel columns would havemaintained their general shape and either fallen to the ground or been recovered in the debris of the collapsed building.
Click to expand...

Just utter lo', son in learjet and some cia, their expertise are in what? Son of an inventor means nothing. they are both barking mad.

~500mph things just fall to the ground breaking Newton 'was of motion.

Again just utter LOL.
 
I feel sorry for Al-Qaeda in all this Tin Foil Hat nonsense.
They pull off one of the greatest victories on American soil and white idiots want to take the blame away from them.
 
US Government prepared to kill 3,000 of it's own citizens in one of the biggest conspiracy the World has ever seen. Not prepared to kill 1 more who 'knows' how they did it , and is prepared to reveal it via the internets.

Does not compute
 
Last edited:
"an affidavit becomes truth in law, if it is not rebutted"

I see what he is doing here. Very clever indeed.
 
Glaucus said:
How did you two come to that conclusion
Click to expand...

From the reading the quote OP provided. :confused:

From the title it seems that he claims no plane hit the towers but what I got from reading the quote OP provided it seems the fella argues that it couldn't have been a Boeing piloted by amateurs, rather than no planes at all. Am I wrong?
 
Last edited:
Outcast said:
Wait..

So the video feeds (to the world) were actually CGI ?

I believe it was a black flag op but to say those planes didn't actually crash into them ?
Click to expand...

To say nothing of all the Manhattan residents who witnessed the event first hand. I suppose every single one of them were paid off to lie about what they saw? :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom